evolution is bullshit

[Hagakure]

i know i have been a big advocate of evolution for a long time now but this video here has converted me

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...893bcdeed13799b

you cant argue with that logic

hahahahahaah

edit: godtube is scary but hilarious http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...aa27a0c99bff671

Edited March 23, 2007 by Hagakure

[Dodie]

Lmfao!!

Some good quotes in there.. "An atheist must have put this video here to discredit Christians!"

"Charlie is proof against inteligent design. No God would bother submitting his design to manufacture as it would have failed quality control. Notice how he doesn't make any reaction when he puts his finger into a mousetrap and it fires. Charlie, you are a waste of good atoms."

"Charley is the missing link. Evolution proved"

[Jesus On Peyote]

If humans did supposedly evolove, which ape did we evolve from? we are n have always been our own seperate species.

[Dodie]

Maybe when we evolved the whole species of ape did so too..

[Hagakure]

quick google search didnt reveal the image i was looking for but this one is pretty close

[Infinitee]

Maybe when we evolved the whole species of ape did so too..

With us choosing our genetic destination through conscious manipulation of our mind/environment due to our chemical differences amongst the Apeish species (of which remnants can be seen running our nation today), and this is what we are confusingly hurtling towards currently?

Edited March 23, 2007 by Infinitee

[prier]

Yeah the evolution theory is great an all.

I heard their has recently been some serious problems with the theory in relation to microbiology. I can't remember where I heard it, possibly some philosophy podcast somewhere. If anyone knows anymore about this I'd love to hear.

[Anodyne]

If humans did supposedly evolove, which ape did we evolve from?

I think you might've misunderstood the theory of evolution. It doesn't say that we evolved from apes - it says that both humans & other primates evolved from older forms of primate - as Hagakure's pic shows.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Theoretically yea, but if we evolved from "another" species, and when we evolved the species as a whole evolved, then what did we evolve from? or have we just always been the same species, in different situations\understandings in time? Just coz now chips n such resemble us in a sense, doesent mean we have evolved from them or another version of them, like cats n dogs, they look the sameish but are completely different.

hope post makes sense

[Auxin]

The "its only a theory" attitude always amuses me for two reasons.

1) Evolution is not a theory, its a thoroughly proven scientific fact. The theory of evolution addresses our understanding of how it works.

2) The theory of evolution is infinitely more scientifically advanced than the theory of gravity and with the exception of the most extreme christians (who believe we are pulled toward the earth by gods love, not gravity) christians dont say 'gravity is only a theory'

When people argue that evolution doesnt exist its usually evident that they really dont know the first thing about evolution. I watch text book examples of evolution play out all the time.

JoP, evolution is usually a gradual process. The entire species of Homo heidelbergensis didnt just wake up one morning and morph into Homo sapiens and proceed to invent the wheel. New species can evolve from an existing one and the existing one doesnt generally vanish immediatly. Wolves still exist. If your arguing that species lines are an artificial construct segregating a process of gradual change into 'boxes' of taxonomic similarities I'm down with that.

[MORG]

I heard their has recently been some serious problems with the theory in relation to microbiology.

The example you have probably heard is just an old argument against evolution re-hashed.

You're probably referring to the bacterial flagellar motor - a structure in bacterial cells resembling a freely rotating axle - which is used for locomotion.

The argument was that the structure was "irreducibly complex" and therefore disproved evolution. That is, any of the parts composing the structure were useless in isolation. The old argument (i.e. early 1900s) was that the eye was similarly "irreducibly complex" (Q: What is the use of half an eye? A: Half an eye is better than a third of an eye)

The argument is not a serious problem for evolutionary theory. We don't totally understand the evolution of the flagellar motor but it is clear that certain components have been adapted from mechanisms in the cell wall that pump compounds in and out of the cell.

The argument of "irreducible complexity" is a cop out in that it takes a gap in current scientific understanding and plugs it with God.

I agree with Auxin that alot of people's argument against evolution comes from a lack of understanding of the theory.

[Infinitee]

How does irreducible complexity replace the unknown with God?

I know some people lean that way, but all it means, to me, is that evolution is obvious, though the theory stating that each small change has to be useful might not always be applicable.

And by saying that there is a purpose or a function behind life is not hard to conceive, something to do with higher forms of organisation or such. But that does not equal a belief in a god who is sticking his beak into evolution once an age and not according to The Rule. The Rule is just A rule and darwin can be 99% right and 1% wrong, right?

[Hagakure]

Yeah the evolution theory is great an all.

I heard their has recently been some serious problems with the theory in relation to microbiology. I can't remember where I heard it, possibly some philosophy podcast somewhere. If anyone knows anymore about this I'd love to hear.

i have heard about that. i think new scientist mentions it. i am chasing i down at the moment.

[shruman]

I think that bacterial flagellar motors have been found to consist of more or less parts in differnent bacteria, leaving the theory (& I use the term loosely) of irreducable complexity high & dry.

The example you have probably heard is just an old argument against evolution re-hashed.

You're probably referring to the - a structure in bacterial cells resembling a freely rotating axle - which is used for locomotion.

The argument was that the structure was "irreducibly complex" and therefore disproved evolution. That is, any of the parts composing the structure were useless in isolation. The old argument (i.e. early 1900s) was that the eye was similarly "irreducibly complex" (Q: What is the use of half an eye? A: Half an eye is better than a third of an eye)

The argument is not a serious problem for evolutionary theory. We don't totally understand the evolution of the flagellar motor but it is clear that certain components have been adapted from mechanisms in the cell wall that pump compounds in and out of the cell.

The argument of "irreducible complexity" is a cop out in that it takes a gap in current scientific understanding and plugs it with God.

I agree with Auxin that alot of people's argument against evolution comes from a lack of understanding of the theory.

[micko]

This video should end all discussion

 

Excellent research.. im convinced

Edited March 24, 2007 by micko

[Jesus On Peyote]

Auxin, i think thats what i mean lol.

LMAO Micko, wtf. i actually wikied that cameron guy n his thing sounds like a cult. werid farker

Edited March 24, 2007 by Jesus On Peyote

[teonanacatl]

I find most creationists are blinded by their belief and cannot see anything else, nor even comprehend it, if darwin was a christian i doubt he would have been able to observe what he did.

[alkatrope]

My god, Godtube is slow.

[Μορφέας]

its a thoroughly proven scientific fact.

fact: An observation that all (or almost all) scientists agree is correct, a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

Evolution will ALWAYS be a theory, A 'thoroughly proven scientific fact' is something that has been obsearved in the present and repeated. You cannot call evolution a fact for the simple reason that NO ONE SAW EXPERIANCE RECOREDED IT.

Did you see that monkey that jerked off 50 times on teusday 6 million years ago from last week? its a thoroughly proven scientific fact that we all theorised together and agreed upon

Edited March 25, 2007 by tepa

[Auxin]

You cannot call evolution a fact for the simple reason that NO ONE SAW EXPERIANCE RECOREDED IT.

You clearly have no clue what evolution is, I suggest you read a few books.

Your right, we dont know the precise genetic and environmental mechanics of evolutionary steps that happened 5 million years ago. But that in no way disproves evolution any more than the lack of physical measurements of gravity 40,000 years ago disproves the existance of gravity today.

And people see and record evolution every single day.

if darwin was a christian i doubt he would have been able to observe what he did.

With the extremists speaking the loudest it is easy to think that, there are rational and educated christians too tho. The extremists write their conclusion before they even write their hypothesis, such as the folk on godtube. There are christians who actually use the scientific method and accept the results, Einstein was a fine example. Edited March 25, 2007 by Auxin

[Μορφέας]

bacteria grow on some agar, non selective media and mutate, evolution?

bacteria mutate and grow immune to antibiotics, evolution?

Well from these simple facts,

WOLAH

we can dictate that the millions and millions of examples of life,

the millions and millions of ecosystem niches

are all the result of evolution from a single life form

which amazingly was a cell with plasma membrane, organelles, ion pumps, enzymes and a dna strand and rna constructed ribosome and the thousands of other atomic nessities that came together at that same point, which all so beautifully dance orchastrated together!

That monkey which jerked of 50 times was green too

Edited March 25, 2007 by tepa

[Jesus On Peyote]

Did you see that monkey that jerked off 50 times on teusday 6 million years ago from last week? its a thoroughly proven scientific fact that we all theorised together and agreed upon

In an other view point that can be seen as being as blind as a church goer having faith in god because priests get together and agree that there is a god based on facts in there crazy little minds. in a way there is as much documented evidence in historical documents about gods miracle an other godly stuff as there is evidence of most scientific theories.

[Μορφέας]

In an other view point that can be seen as being as blind as a church goer having faith in god because priests get together and agree that there is a god based on facts in there crazy little minds. in a way there is as much documented evidence in historical documents about gods miracle an other godly stuff as there is evidence of most scientific theories.

LOL, very much so, how ever i didnt use demeening adjectives n call names

We agree then, That no body will ever know

Edited March 25, 2007 by tepa

[Auxin]

There are organisms with no organelles, ever heard of prokaryotes? You would have if you had read about evolution or taken the most elementary biology course offered in uni. Seriously, I learned this stuff 5 years before graduating high school.

Current evolutionary theory puts forward compelling evidence that DNA did not exist in the first organisms, its not proven but the evidence is significant. In that train of thought 'rna constructed ribosomes' as we know then didnt exist in the earliest organisms but rather are the result of further advancement on structures from the most advanced pre-DNA world.

Plasma membranes? Your joking right? Put a lipid in water, shake, and plasma membranes form on their own.

If you want to refute evolutionary theory thats GREAT Rock on dude. No scientist that fears scrutiny is worth its weight in mouse farts... But please actually educate yourself on the topic so you dont look like some extremist wackjob with an elementary school education that thinks the world is flat, your arguments will never carry weight if you dont understand the subject your trying to refute.

I dont care if folks disagree with me, I dont care if folks are really seriously into their religion, but for your own sake at least read a book or two on the subject.

[Μορφέας]

you know wat i will, i feel belittled the way you wrote that post.

watch this place

il b back

Edited March 25, 2007 by tepa